Romney’s Electability Card Is a Joker to Perry’s Four Aces
The Republican nominating contest is shaping up like a great poker game. The former governor of Massachusetts is facing off with the current governor of Texas. The odds-makers are number-crunching the hands. The voters are laying down bets. And the future of America is the stake.
Now, the word among the prestigious movers and shakers – both Republican and Democrat — is that Mitt Romney is holding the all-powerful electability card firmly in his delicate, city-slicker hand. Romney is seen as more temperate in his speaking mode, more sophisticated perhaps, certainly more urbane. Romney has spent nearly all of his adult life in high-rolling circles, board rooms and the like. He could be the poster boy for country club Republicans and apparently, a great many insiders would love to call him their candidate.
Well, okay then. But that still leaves the fundamental question of whether America can be brought back from the precipice of history’s dustbin by Massachusetts-style, bureaucratic, Big Brother government or if it’s going to saddle up and have the courage to swallow a massive shot of Texan low-tax, low-spend, slim-down at the federal level to get us through to a brighter American morning.
Mitt Romney says now that Rick Perry’s governorship of Texas looks so great because he got “dealt 4 aces,” evidently not wanting to credit Perry for any of Texas’ uncommon economic prosperity. But that’s not how Romney characterized Perry’s governorship just four months ago…
While campaigning in Arlington, Texas in May, Romney donned blue jeans and left his silk necktie in the closet. He moseyed on down to Rudy’s Barbeque for a stump speech, in which he gave glowing praise of Governor Perry:
I couldn’t possibly be here today without complimenting your great governor. He’s doing one heck of a job. The nation can learn a lot from a governor who says if you want to attract good jobs you gotta keep taxes down, you gotta keep bureaucracy down, you gotta get education to work for the kids – not just for the teachers union – and he is pursuing an agenda which is pro-growth, it’s pro-creating jobs in this state.
The rest of the country could learn a lot of lessons from Governor Rick Perry. He’s a great governor. I wish President Obama would have paid more attention to Governor Perry because the president has done exactly the opposite.
Well, it’s sad to say but I think many Massachusetts citizens probably wish now that Governor Romney himself had paid more attention to Governor Perry because much of what Romney did while governor of the Bay State uncannily resembles Obama-style, tax-and-spend, Big Brother government.
Governor Romney didn’t need to do any actual governing in the form of getting big concessions from his liberal legislature to get his own big-bleeping-deal “universal” healthcare passed. All he had to do was fold ‘em. Liberals got everything they wanted and Massachusetts citizens were left holding the empty bag to the tune of increased costs, a bare increase in actual coverage mostly at state expense and the predictable doctor shortage with longer and longer wait times for patients.
Then Romney genially folded to the “universal care” Democrat winners and jovially signed the technocrat’s dream bill. Ted Kennedy can be seen just behind the suckered governor smiling like a Cheshire cat.
Actual governing, as Romney should have learned, isn’t quite as easy as corporate-boardroom technocratic number crunching. Downsizing a government is nothing like selling off parts of a company to make it more profitable. And there is no evidence that Mitt Romney effectively downsized the bloated Massachusetts government. His healthcare act only up-sized the Bay State’s bureaucracy.
Downsizing a company merely requires the decision of the purchaser. Jobs get eliminated, people get laid off. At the flick of a technocrat’s finger, downsizing happens. Profitability returns.
Downsizing a government, on the other hand, requires the support of the majority of the populace. And selling the downsize becomes far more important than all the facts and figures which support its wisdom. Mitt Romney wasn’t even able to whittle down the Bay State’s bureaucracy as governor. How in the world does he think he’s going to take on the federal downsizing which has become essential for American survival?
Defending his own technocratic, committee-solution, bureaucracy-loving governing style in one of the bluest states in the country has got to be a lot tougher for Mitt now that he would be faced with Obama’s technocratic, committee-solution, bureaucracy-loving governing style of the last 3 years. Being a graduate of Harvard must have worked great for Mitt when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in Harvard’s front yard, but now that Barack Obama has ruined the Harvard brand nationwide for at least 50 years Mitt has to hide his Harvard stuff rather than flaunt it for votes. Sad, really.
Barack Obama fooled a whole lot of moderate/independent voters in 2008 and his actual record was so slim and filled with so many “present” votes that he could pull off the most disingenuous campaign in history. Obama has become the poster child for political opportunism.
Mitt Romney’s record of political flip-flopping to make himself more palatable to non-Massachusetts voters reeks of similar opportunism. Mitt was all for abortion before he entered national politics; now he says he’s against it. Mitt was in favor of “don’t ask; don’t tell,” but then he was against it. Mitt was for gun control laws; now he says he supports the 2nd amendment. Mitt was all for illegal immigration amnesty; now he’s against it. None of Romney’s political stands seem to have been made upon sound principle, which leaves voters with the queasy notion that Mitt changes views with the winds of focus groups and can’t be trusted to tell voters the truth up front.
Which brings us to a very sticky wicket, as the Brits might say. Barack Obama has signaled his intention to go all in on a class warfare gambit that will pit “the poor” vs “the rich.” It’s boilerplate community organizing stuff, as anyone who has read Obama’s political bible – Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – would know. But just as this emotional plea for other people’s money has riled large swaths of financial “have-nots” for decades now, it will certainly appeal to Obama’s base and get them out in droves to vote for more economy-strangling taxation on “the wealthy.”
How on earth will Mitt Romney fare in such a contest? He was born with a silver spoon the size of a thriving auto company, spent his adolescence in a posh private school, spent two years in Paris on the tab of the Mormons, then romped off to Brigham Young and soon landed in the rose garden of Harvard. Since then, Romney has spent nearly all of his adult life flitting from one corporate board room to the next, buying up companies, laying off workers in one downsizing maneuver after another, growing very, very rich on what Obama will say was the suffering of far more downtrodden and worthy souls. And if faced off with Barack Obama, the son of a goat herder and a teenage mom, Mitt Romney will become the white, posh, country-club punching bag for all the new Obama-impoverished voters and their limousine-liberal enablers.
On the other hand, Rick Perry came from genuine hardscrabble roots. Perry wasn’t a bookworm; he became an Eagle Scout instead of the teacher’s pet. But Perry’s no slouch in the brains department. One does not get certified to fly big jets for the U.S. Air Force without some heavy-duty brain power. All in all, Perry seems to have opted for learning the things that apply to real life, while perhaps shunning those things preferred by the eggheads in academia.
It seems more than a little naïve for Governor Romney to see himself as the more easily electable candidate in a face-off with Barack Obama. Evidently, Mitt has hung around most of his life amongst the shallow-civility crowd and does not even see the class-warfare and anti-Mormon dirt that Obama will soon be hurling his way – if he is the nominee.
With each new peek at Romney’s electability card, it looks more and more like a joker to Perry’s legitimately earned hand of four aces. I can’t help thinking that if it weren’t for Romney’s millions bankrolling his own campaign his poor odds of electability would have shown themselves as the joker they are – long before now.
The stakes could not be higher in this election. And the last thing I want is to be taking Romney’s joker-filled hand to the table against the vilest cards-up-the-sleeve politician ever to stride up to the table.
It’s America’s High Noon.
I’m betting on the hand with four aces.
I know Perry is the favorite here at PJM (and I have a preference of him over Romney myself), but let’s be honest, he has not covered himself in glory in these three debates.
I was hoping he would refine his performance each time, but it does not seem to be happening.
It ain’t an audition for the Oxford Debating Society. Haven’t you tired yet of all that stupidity? Why do we put these guys through test after test that has absolutely nothing to do with being a President? Why do we let the idiots in the media make something so deadly serious into a game show?
Every couple of days, Perry comes forth with a well though out, comprehensive answer to another real problem. Try reading some of them. They’re always online.
Although, if you just want to elect a smartass, reelect O’Bumbles. How’s that working out for you? Well, there isn’t a pair of gnats between one overbred Wall Street and Harvard Jackass and another. BS and subterfuge is all they’re selling. They think you’re an idiot, and if you believe them, you are.
Sure, discredit the debates not the man if you choose. But the eventual nominee (not Perry, not Romney) will be taking on Obama in the same debates less than a year from now.
We better vet our candidates objectively or we risk four more years of Obama.
You’re so right–self-nomination for president culminating in debates is the system we’ve got! Have to live with it. It IS ridiculous, but those who self-nominate know what’s ahead. Selection process IS a bit rigged–clear to me that the corporate money that owns the Republican Congress yearn for Huntsman–George Bush I clone. But one advantage of this bizarre process is the PUBLIC is involved–corporate money must not control EVERYTHING or Huntsman wouldn’t be doing as badly as he is.
I loved this article for its great, devastating portrait of Romney. He will NEVER be “loved” and dog on the roof incident, and his Mormonism are large-segment-of-lost-votes. Besides he has all those kids and grandkids that would need Secret Service protection. He could offer to pay that himself perhaps??
I say yet again to all Republicans — take a look at Buddy Roemer. As an independent, he’s the only Republican I’ll vote for. No Roemer? I vote for Obama.
Roemer is the only candidate that can beat Obama. He has a populist cause (fair trade instead of free trade) that resonates across entire political spectrum. How do you think Ross Perot waS able to get 18% of the vote in 1992 as a 3d party? [Got 20% in New Hampshire where first primary is.] He ran AGAINST NAFTA!
As an issue, Republican anti-NAFTA trumps Democratic class warfare.
Other than Roemer, if I were a Republican at this point I’d vote for Newt Gingrich. Reminds me so much of Bill Clinton–both brilliant, both so verbal in great paragraphs unrehearsed (contrast with Perry!), neither have any morals when it comes to women, but both (I believe) have the talent, political shrewdness, vision to be outstanding presidents (if they can just keep their seedier predilections under control).
After Dartmouth debate, I’d like lineup (for interesting debate) to be Romney (Perry will bite the dust after next debate), Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, Buddy Roemer plus either Huntsman or Cain. And for maximum chance to win, Cain is the universal VP. Would rid Republican Party of anti-black image created by some in that party and Cain IS one of those lucky few people who, for whatever reason, is LIKABLE. Need that! And he’s capable. Interesting to have a non-politician VP for a change, in training for president. Chris Christie and Giuliani? Decide by early October or give it up.
I’ll vote for Elmer Fudd before I vote for Obama. Everyone seems to forget that Congressional makeup will have much to do with what policies are instituted. Example: Although Romney is an AGW believer, a Republican-controlled Congress will never permit him to pass cap-and-trade legislation. And he will never be allowed to keep the EPA under present management. The same applies to Perry’s warped immigration policies. As long as we have a Republican Congress that answers to the will of the electorate, I don’t much care which Republican gets elected. It’s nothing more than a popularity contest, anyway. Every candidate has some dirty laundry he wants to hide. And your “No Roemer? I vote for Obama” statement is childish – equivalent to “give me my candy or I won’t play”.
Nothing wrong with having debates, the problem is that the Republicans seem to think it’s a great idea to go to debates hosted by the liberal-crazy MSM. These are the GOP primaries, why are they paying any attention to the MSM in the first place? All they do is throw out questions to either make them look bad to the leftie voters, or ones that make them look better to the lefties, but who we all know will never vote for someone with an (R) next to their name.
These are the primaries, the winner can go on to play games with Obama and the MSM during the presidential debates. There’s no point to it now.
no, you’re right. I’m a Perry preferrer too, but he has been just plain BAD in the debates, and getting worse.
again, to remind all my ideological friends out there: we have to keep our eyes on the prize. and the prize is we send Obama back to Chicago real soon. if Romney is a better bet to beat Obama than Perry, I’m all for Romney. heck, if Carrot Top is a better bet to beat Obama then he will get my vote!
I like Perry, too, aside from issues where he hasn’t adequately explained his reasoning. N
michiganruth, like you, I too like Perry, for now. That said, I thought at times Perry was trying very hard to remember arguments that were not yet his own. So more explainin’ is necessary. I suspect he, like the other candidates at this point, is rapidly approaching information overload, so I think a little slack should be cut all around. It’s best to make no snap judgments — in this election especially. Let’s not let the “perfect” be the enemy of the “good”, yet.
For example, Herman Cain gave a magnificent example of someone learning, very quickly, a subject area in which he had come up lacking and then acting to go on record with a more informed opinion. Herman Cain, not perfect, but good.
And Newt. I hope he can manage to stay in the race for a long time. His opinions always make me think, so I like that. I especially love how he takes it straight to the “enemy”.
Sorry for the sloppy editing on that!
‘None of the Above’. The beauty of the Republican Party is the people haven’t yet turned their right to vote over to ‘the party leaders’, like the democrat party, fooled the people who ‘used to vote’, into doing. Although last pres election, the Republican Party ‘leaders’ crammed little general 2 to be our ‘only’ choice. We the People are holding out and hoping those who still have the right to vote in America will actually vote and choose the person who actually may do what they say they are going to do ‘if elected’. If, ordinary americans refuse to vote they will be as responsible for the destruction of american as the democrats! Vote against obama first, then vote for america!
Gee, what ever gave you the idea that PJM is for Perry. Must be because of their new name, “PJM 4 Perry.”
Well they surely are all in hyper defensive mode after three successive failed debates. People are dropping off the Perry bandwagon in groups.
Now we get the Devil’s Choice of Romney v. Perry. But it ain’t quite that simple. Neither one will win the nomination. Perry for his floundering; Romney for his flip-flops.
Come on, PJM, at least pretend to be objective for formally change your name. Yesterday I was treated to Roger Simon (who I greatly admire) trying to pry former VP Cheney for an endorsement of Perry’s speech on Israel. It was torturous to watch. Roger kept throwing Perry’s name out over and over, and the sly fox Dick Cheney kept batting it away.
Perry’s fundamental problem is his policy choices (cater to cheap-labor business and ethnic panderbots while betraying American citizen-taxpayers and cater to lobbyist insiders and big pharma while betraying soccer moms) and the way those policy choices make him look: weak, dishonest, and anti-white.
If I want weak, dishonest and anti-white, I’ll vote for Obama.
NEXT.
Agree with you, hang in there Rick. Perry/Rubio or Perry/Daniels would be great for America.
I bet you can’t wait for Perry v. Obama in the debates. Yea, he will win the debate…..right?
Did you watch Obama debate Hillary in the last Democrat Presidential primary? Obama was a terrible debater. Hillary cleaned his clock. Obama did not win because of his superior debating skills.
Perry is where Obama was versus the early Hillary debates, only worse. Don’t know why you “clingers” are in such defensive mode for Perry. The man blew chunks in 3 successive debates.
If he can’t compete against the manikin Romney, he is toasted and roasted.
I vastly prefer Palin to the whole lot of them. I despise RINOs who:
1) cannot understand the 2nd Amendment as written;
2) will not abolish any of our alphabet soup government organizations;
3) will not significantly reduce economy-killing regulations;
4) will not open vast swathes of our country to oil and other mineral exploration, and/or;
5) have supported the fraud that is Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Let me see if I follow your logic: Obama didn’t do as well in debates as Hillary. Obama gets elected. Obama is an utter failure as a president, but a nice guy. Ergo, Republicans should ALSO choose a weak candidate, because… ?
This would be a cautionary tale, not a blueprint for success.
Before Perry’s first debate, his handlers were saying he wasn’t much of a debater. I thought they were just trying to temper expectations so that we’d all be blown away with how awesome he was. I didn’t actually think that they were – you know – telling the truth!
Ideally, the Republicans will select a candidate who:
1) is a conservative;
2) polls well;
3) is an effective leader, and;
4) is a good debater/communicator.
In that order. Do you agree?
The current group of nine doesn’t have anyone who fits all four categories. Perry is an awful debater and it is an important weakness. He made a terrible mistake by accusing conservatives of being heartless. What is a hard-core conservative to do? (Hint: the answer is NOT Romney).
Obama never took positions that were an anathema to the majority of Dem Primary voters. Obama never insulted Dem Primary voters. The problem isnt just Perry is a bad debater, he has taken positions on immigration that are an insult to the GOP base.
Gov. Perry’s debate performance has the potential of approaching that of Admiral Stockdale:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4123/saturday-night-live-joyride-with-perot
I agree.
Bryan Preston posted an article here earlier which highlighted some relevant issues regarding the subsidization of illegal alien education. It might be useful if Perry communicated that:
1) he couldn’t legally deport illegals, and;
2) too many illegals receive expensive taxpayer-subsidized ‘education’ in prison (crime finishing school).
That said, I agree with you that insulting your base is pretty stupid.
Do you forget that Obama can only speak when he has a teleprompter? It bothers me no end that you Americans call these staged presentations debate. I witnessed many debates in my lifetime and believe me these bizarre events are not debates, and are therefore meaningless. Overall I prefer a candidate who is NOT a lawyer, nor a Harvard grad. Eagle scout and AF pilot is good enough for me, and someone who had to work to get through school is preferable to someone who grew up with privileges.
On the other hand, you have to wonder if Obama’s minions are going to have enough bus fare to get to the polling station no matter who the GOP puts up. And with more of eh media becoming disillusioned every day, we’re not going to have the Hope N Change, swooning int he aisles media coverage this time around.
The economy gets worse every day, and like it or not, Obama is going to get the blame from all quarters. Well, except for maybe Keith Olberman and Michael Moore.
Sloganeering is partly why Obama managed to attract many independent voters. Our whole commercial marketing philosophy is based on it, because slogans work. He won’t be able to use the same “hope and change” strategy this time around, otherwise he will be running against himself.
I am not impressed at all with Perry. At first I thought, “Ok, maybe he is on the level.” But the more I hear from Mr. Perry, the more I am convinced, he is NOT my candidate. At least, not my first choice. That doesn’t necessarily mean Romney is my first choice of candidates either. Rick Perry just sounds too “slick” – like he is trying to sell me a used car or something.
Agree with Sutterbean. While Perry had the benefit of a solidly conservative legislature in TX, Romney had to deal with a lunatic liberal legislature in MA. This is what Romney means when he talks about Aces.
Perry is not the guy.
Agree!
Me too!
You might want to check your facts. For the majority including in 2001 when we the voterse of Texas NOT Rick Perry passed the Texas Dream Act (all he did was sign a Veto Proof bill sent to him by bipartisan 99.6% of our legislature-funny he is beat up for doing 10 years ago what people wanted but same hypocrites cuss obama for not listening to the people-sort of damned if you do & damned if you don’t). Anyway back to my point is that yes currently there is a conservative majority in Texas legislature, but for MOST of Gov Perry time as Gov there was not.
I agree with sutterbean. When Romney went to France on a mission it was not easy. The way most missions work in Europe are a lot of doors shut in your face. You learn to love those that dislike you. You also learn to never give up and that people can’t be forced to where you want them to go. Perry on the other hand seems to want to force you through his orders to conform to his demands and this is a worry to me.
– in the afterlife Romney will be a God of his own planet?
which has to do with … what?
It has to do with arrogance vs. humility. I choose humility. The humble man is less likely to make an extremely serious mistake. Romney is cocky as well as arrogant and more likely to charge ahead into the unknown because of his lofty opinion of himself.
taxguy
It has to do with arrogance vs. humility. I choose humility. The humble man is less likely to make an extremely serious mistake. Romney is cocky as well as arrogant and more likely to charge ahead into the unknown because of his lofty opinion of himself.
PJM was it worth it? All for a politician with feet of clay just like every other politician before him. How utterly depressing. Did everything they publish have such a naked agenda & I just didn’t notice it? Probably.
Remember PJM’s motto, as Bill Whittle aptly put it: “Factual, but not unbiased.” Can you point to any counterfactuals they’ve put out?
Matthew:
Counterfactual? Perhaps
Myopic? Absolutely. Just count the number of pro-Perry pieces on PJM including Roger’s constant effort to push Dick Cheney to bless Perry’s Israel speech (which Cheney skillfully avoided)
This piece feels like pro-Perry propaganda. I know RLS likes Perry, as do most of the writers on this site. I am still not sold. Romney, with all of his failings and inability to win elections, is getting stronger because Perry doesn’t seem ready for national office. He’s either chewing the scenery, failing to rehearse, or flubbing his lines. With each gaffe, he’s making himself seem more like a risky choice. I count myself among the fire breathing libertarians who would be happy for VP slot to occupied by a true believer and for the number 1 slot to be occupied by someone who won’t blow it. Romney looks like the guy who won’t blow it.
I consider Romney a big government RINO and Perry’s Dream act for the childern of illegal aliens all of whom should be deported means I have no acceptable candidate other than Bachmann.
Yes, the US so needs a tough woman who wont buckle under pressure.
that romney thinks he has a chance at all bugs me. that other republicans think he has a chance bugs me. that he might knock out a succesful governor with a real jobs record nauseates me. how could people be so precious and perfect, in the republican party? that’s what idealistic democrats are for.
I adore you Kyle-Anne…you know I do. I am the President of your fan club.
But, if we are going to compare and contrast, we ought to undress both of them equally.
I would vote for either of them to get rid of this administration, which has been an experiment in Acid Flashback Activism…but, then again I would vote for a piece of burnt toast, if I thought it could win and end the misery free fall this country is experiencing at the hands of the Marxists.
However, my desire for a consensus candidate has not materialized. Perry was nothing short of awful last night. His “if you don’t agree with me, you have no heart” comment was about as colossal a blunder as one could construct…and will live on in the left wing giggle factory.
For heaven’s aake, the guy stumps for Al Gore…you don’t need another epic blunder on your public appearance resume’.
Romney is far from ideal. What we all have to do is decide what skills, experience, talents and character traits we want in a President…AND…can we get that in a guy who can take back the country from the Woodstock Nation.
Because those are two very distinct areas. Unfortunately. Let me take the second part first. If you can’t win…I don’t want you to run. Period. Any candidate who cannot take back the government, can’t deliver the message, can’t overcome the propaganda machine…I want eliminated from consideration.
To do that, you have to be able to deliver the message, think on your feet when the opposing side is blowing rainbows up the country’s skirt and peel back, unwrap and slice, dice and mince the BS distortions that are going to be filling up the propaganda machine’s vehicles.
If you stutter, stammer, lose your thoughts, stumble, bumble and fumble your way through the general election, you will get mutilated.
If you can’t destroy the other side’s rigged advantage of BS and distortion, you will take all of us down with you. Unless and until we get that point to be cemented in our thought process…nothing else will matter.
And, on that front…Rick Perry took a big step backward last night.
It’s sad that you, or anyone else, would base their candidate of choice on these stupid debates. I usually don’t watch them but did last night and all I got were recycled questions and a lot of silly techno showing off on the part of FOX and Google. Debated are worthless.
Debates do matter.
FYI, the final debate between Reagan and President Carter in October 1980 won Reagan the election. Reagan used his now-famous “Are you better off now than 4 years ago” argument. That was all it took. Polls showed a big shift from Carter to Reagan–and Reagan won.
The GOP nominee is going to have to debate Obama, one-on-one, on live TV in front of a big audience. Do you think Perry could put Obama away the way Reagan put Carter away? Based on what I’ve seen in these debates, the answer is no.
Obama is a skilled debater if nothing else. Obama could even put Perry on the defensive–and a challenger seeking to defeat an incumbent can’t be on the defensive.
Ironic how your OWN words show that these current debates are worthless. I lost my dog so must have talked to 100 people yesterday. Not one single 1 watched the debates. But I digress you pointed out Reagan vs Carter-in other words Republican vs Democrat made a difference. Rick Perry will dismantle Obama. But please quit fooling yourself if your willing to vote for Romney your just a CINO.
Obama doesn’t think well on his feet, regarding issues, although he knows how to use mockery well.
So, based on your disregard for debates, you, based upon Perry’s performances assure us of a win should Perry go up against Obama in a series of debates leading up to November 2012?
Insightful, cf. These debates show how well a candidate can handle the BS thrown their way. This is sissy stuff compared to what he/she will face once one of them is the nominee. You better be able to think on your feet, or you will commit gaffe after gaffe like Bachmann does.
I dread the thought at this point of Perry being on the debate stage with Obama with all the millions of undecideds watching. One impression is all it takes for many people, and it can decide the election. Those of you who think these debates do not matter are kidding yourselves. In a perfect world, they wouldn’t, but it is the reality, just like the fact that non-telegenic people stand little chance of being elected.
I strangely find myself drifting towards Cain or even Santorum(!), despite their flaws. They both have solid beliefs and can argue their case. It matters. One has to be able to enunciate one’s message.
Perry is not my “perfect” choice (nor is he perfect). But he is my choice over Romney. I view Romney as part of the group that helped the Democrats get us in this mess (elitist, big government supporter, and liberal on social issues until he flip over to the “dark” side). If Romney gets the nomination, the class warfare attacks on him will work (the mansion issue is just one – remember McCain who couldn’t remember how many houses he had? And why is his mansion not in Massachusetts? Is he moving to get away from RomneyCare? Is he moving to get closer to the liberal elites in California?).
As far as debating skills go, we have the “smoothest and best talker” currently in the Oval office. How is that going for us so far?
But he is in the Oval Office.
I’m not picking a GOP candidate just because he’s “a true conservative” or “he says hard truths” or “he’s one of us Red State folks” or “he’s from the Great State of Texas.” All that stuff is secondary to whether the candidate can beat Obama.
I’ll support a GOP candidate who can best convince Independent voters that Obama does not deserve a second term. The GOP candidate does not have to sell YOU or ME; we’re already going to vote against Obama. He has to sell the Independent and Undecided voters not to vote for Obama.
Keep your eye on the prize: It’s convincing enough voters who aren’t loyal Republicans to not vote for Obama.
The good news is that the mansion argument isn’t going to work so well in this election. During the McCain/Obama debate era Obama was to all appearances living a much more modest life – one that the average American could relate to, as opposed to McCain’s life while married to Cindy.
But the last three years the country has watched the Obama lifestyle and many middle Americans are not pleased. Too many luxury vacations – the pained looks when forced to mingle with the little people. And Marie Antoinette – oops – I mean Michelle seems to be striving to become the next Jacki O, which she just can never do. And if her trip to Spain with her “closest 50 friends” is any indication, she refuses to listen to her handlers, which is great. I suspect that more and more American women are finding it difficult to relate or even like her.
So its a different year and I suspect that many people are beginning to think that the Obamas are out of touch, and worse, have no real interest in the average American. Its a different race this year than the last, so if we get too caught up in recreating the last election’s nuances, we will miss this new boat.
Romney is a RINO. The reason Perry is appealing is that he provides a sharp contrast to the O. Debates are overrated. W lost all the debates against Gore and Kerry according to the commentariat but still managed to win both elections. What Bush did accomplish was to connect to the voters. He wasn’t stiff (like both Gore and Kerry) and displayed a wry sense of humour. Yes Perry has faltered in these debates but that IMO gives him some humanity, something Romney doesn’t exactly radiate. Lastly to the Dream Act. Here Perry is clearly playing the long game. He feels he can win this thing and knows that the audience is way different in a general election. This and some of his other positions will give him immense cred with independants. Smart. Nobody sees it. This is why he wins elections. He thinks ahead.
– observation.
So, you guarantee that Perry the nominee will win in a series of debates with Obama in the general? Pleaseeee
Yes I do. By then he will have had many months of proper coaching. Remember, Mittens has been at this for over four years. Perry on the other hand- just a few weeks. Go to the Corner at NRO and you will find many who agree with me when it comes to Perry’s version of the Dream Act.
I am well aware of the foolish debate over the Texas Dream Act at NRO/The Corner. Sometimes they are right but often they are wrong. Here is the problem:
According to the Texas Dream Act, an illegal couple’s child born in Texas is provided with special in-state tuition rights. These special in-state tuition rights, however, are not afforded to native born children birthed in neighboring New Mexico, Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico birthed by US citizens? Where is “the heart” in that?
So, in effect, children born in the US to legal US parents from neighboring US states are subsidizing the children born of illegal parents in Texas? That is insane.
Moreover, for all the pretense of Texas being so uniquely situated, there are other border states (New Mexico, California, Arizona) who could equally claim similar circumstances claimed by Texas.
Wait a minute, Potato Head. Children born in neighboring states can get in-state tuition if their families have been residing in Texas for a certain period (…isn’t it something like two years?), just as illegals can get in-state tuition if they’ve been residing in Texas long enough. In-state tuition is about RESIDENCE not place of birth. Someone from Texas tell me if I’m mistaken on my understanding of that.
I’m not inclined to wait for Perry to get up to speed. He should be vetted just as all the others are.
By the end of day, I don’t think this is a contest between Romney and Perry. Romney can’t possibly win the nomination and Perry is sinking like a boulder thrown in to the Rio Grande.
And no one has even brought up all the other skeletons he carries: Texas Corridor, The Texas venture capital fund, where he only decided on winners to dole out taxpayer funds to (and recipients surprisingly showed up on his donor list). We are only scratching the surface.
I heard some of the debate this morning on Beck and was appalled at the lack of style and statemenship of the two “frontrunners” Romney and Perry. Romney challenged Perry on his flip-flopping and Perry immediately said he wanted to “respond” to the claim and he proceeded to mount a tit-for-tat rebuke of a Romney flip-flop. He didn’t explain the charge or deny it, he just made a counter-claim against Romney. And then Ronmey, “in response” changed to speech mode without esplaining Perry’s charge. It was a big pile of fresh dung being served up by two professional speech-makers with ZERO subsatnc, in othe words “business as usual” for a dumbed-down public. And Chris Wallace just took it without missing a beat and accepted their garbage asking the candidates to snswer the claims. It’s all just cheap corrupt entertainment for the masses with your typical political “deny, obfuscate, and misdirect.” and no one cares or notices that this is bogus.
Right on Kraut I agree with your take. (Like your name too:-))
I heard some of the debate this morning on Beck and was appalled at the lack of style and statesmanship of the two “frontrunners” Romney and Perry. Romney challenged Perry on his flip-flopping and Perry immediately said he wanted to “respond” to the claim and he proceeded to mount a tit-for-tat rebuke of a Romney flip-flop. He didn’t explain the charge or deny it, he just made a counter-claim against Romney. And then Romney, “in response” changed to speech mode without explaining Perry’s charge. It was a big pile of fresh dung being served up by two professional speech-makers with ZERO substance, in other words “business as usual” for a dumbed-down public. And Chris Wallace just took it without missing a beat and accepted their garbage asking the candidates to answer the claims. It’s all just cheap corrupt entertainment for the masses with your typical political “deny, obfuscate, and misdirect.” and no one cares or notices that this is bogus.
Hard to win going up against a used car salesman, as Romney comes across.
I hope he at least takes Allen West with him for the ride. We get a second chance to disprove the racism charges, typically leveled.
Santorum for AG!
I wrote this piece before the debate last night. And I agree that Perry seems to be blowing it in these debates. That’s pretty consensus thinking today.
I also think, as another commenter mentioned, that these debates are horrible gauges of leadership. They might make great TV and stimulate some punchy lines but don’t serve the public’s best interests, in my opinion. Still, they are a staple of modern politics and Rick Perry needs to improve rather drastically in this format. He comes across as not having really prepared…and we have enough of that already in government.
I’m not inclined towards Mitt Romney on a number of measures, but it is very clear that he has amply benefited from his four full years campaigning for president. And no one can take that away from him.
Nice follow-up then. I liked this article. It did not seem to particularly favor either candidate.
And yes, Romney has the campaigning experience, no doubt. Maybe that’s why Republicans choose the next-in-line, because it takes Republicans that long to learn to quit tripping over their own tongues. They always seem to get blind-sided when they step into the national debate, like Palin, Bachmann, and now Perry.
No, a debate is not a good indicator of leadership. It is, however, a pretty good indicator of something very important for our leader, namely clear-headedness. I gather Perry didn’t demonstrate it.
Here’s an ace up a sleeve: PALIN.
Correct!
“…but it is very clear that he has amply benefited from his four full years campaigning for president. And no one can take that away from him.”
I accept the challenge. He was stuffy and stilted four years ago and he is today, what Romney lacks time does not help. Mitt has got to be the candidate Obama would most like to face, a virtual duel of Mr. Icebox and Mr. Freeze. If this is the best he can do with four years of practice, I don’t hold out much hope he can fix his inner thermostat in three weeks. I’m not ready to count out other potential candidates getting up the learning curve and surprising us. The good thing for Perry is people aren’t really paying attention to these debates yet, they will when there are fewer people on the stage. Let’s see who makes the most of the three week break.
If Romney were going to catch fire, he would have done better in 2008. Has anyone ever thought “Wow, the republicans would have won the White House if we had nominated Romney instead of McCain?” Anyone, anyone? Times were plenty tough in 2008, was he the former candidate we wish we’d heard more from? OK, he’s light years ahead of DebtManWalking but so is Bush (all of them).
There is a lot more politicking ahead before we have to make the choice and Perry’s appeal may remain limited as well. Newt is absolutely right that Republicans should resist efforts by the MSM to fight amongst themselves and turn their aim to President Downgrade. If time on the campaign trail ends up being the thing that separates the wannabees from the nominee, I hope Ron Paul picks a good VP.
Kyle-Anne, you can’t simply discredit the debates. Whoever the nominee is, they will be going head-to-head with Obama in subsequent debates in the general.
We need to objectively vet our candidates, not discredit the mechanisms used for evaluating them.
uh, guys? I have some news for you from drudge:
Chris Chris Reconsiders Presidential Run in 2012
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Christie-president-Romney-Perry/2011/09/23/id/412133
we are saved.
CHRISTIE/RUBIO 2012!
Already denied by the Christie staffers.
Yeah right Christie has major ISSUES he has limited experience-he is a northerner, flip flop on abortion & also a Muslim lover & attacked people for verbalizing concern about appointing Muslim judges.
……and an AGW believer.
Loved Santorum AND Cain. All we need is a Palin;)
The fact is, we have no electable Presidential candidates, so the best thing to do is to push for Hilary Clinton to run for office and assume Barry’s position.
Then maybe in 2016 we can find an electable Republican candidate, someone who’s not afraid to say Intelligent Design is crap and that science is Evolutionary–although the Ancient Aliens theorists are gaining ground in the History channel.
I suggest you visit Malta’s Hypogeum and visit the underground quarters. If you don’t think ancient intelligence built that then you are an evangelical Christian.
what we need is someone who has the integrity to say what they mean and not pander to any one, including darwinists.
Hillary Clinton and her POS husband should be sitting in a jail cell. Please, you much be outta your mind.
Keep repeating the same falsehood over and over, and it eventually becomes acceptable as the truth. The History channel is simply a reporting tool. Just recently, we learned the Sun is actually a gasseous mass.
I enjoyed this article and you made some good points Ms. Shiver, however I think Romney has been the clear winner in the last two GOP debates.
Illegal immigration is a very important issue among the majority of Americans and Mr. Perry falls very short on this issue. I recall in 2007 Mitt Romney said he would send the illegals home, make them stand in line and come back through the proper channels. This was at that time a powerful message to me, still is.
I have attended several tea party events and I am in agreement with many of their concerns, however I realize the progressives have destroyed the democrat party and I fear the same could happen within our own party.
I have no doubt that any one of our candidates can hold their ground in a debate with Obama but for now, I think Romney is a few steps ahead.
It’s so sad to see how liberalism has infiltrated so much of society, including the Republican party. Neither Romney nor Perry are conservatives, they are pretenders (Rush’s show theme, btw). If you must define a single trait found commonly on the left it would be “mandate”- the opposite of “liberty”.
Which governor would mandate state-run healthcare? Which governor would mandate HPV vaccines for little girls? Which governor would stand-up to immoral leftists or potential campaign contributors and tell them to “shove it”, where the liberty of constituents was their greatest concern? Neither.
The mess we’re in today stems from too much reliance upon a centralized government whose five-year-plans exceed our ability to pay (for them). Both of these candidates deserve some credit for wanting to devolve power from the Feds back to the states, however, granting in-state tuition to a Mexican National makes about as much sense as forcing a citizen to pay for some bum’s appendectomy. How is any of this different from admitting Osama bin Laden’s twin sister to Harvard or treating Ahmedinejad’s hemmoroids with cash yanked (yankers) from Boston taxpayers?
In the case of both candidates, neither considers the moral issues which would, if they were true conservatives, come first. Thus, any nation that will not defend it’s sovereignty and it’s citizens above all else does not deserve such a designation. It becomes Hollow Land and soon uninhabitable by anyone Patrick Henry might have shared a beer with. Thusly, any state that treads-on-thee under the thin veil of a peculiar 10th amendment interpretation ought to lose it’s membership in a Union whose particular establishment was to protect all citizens from plunder at the hands of THE state.
If my choices are to Fly the Friendly Skies of Statism or Collectivism, I’d rather drive, thank you. Enjoy the gropes, y’all.
I consider myself to be very conservative and I do respect the opinion of others without condemnation of their reasons.
Romney has promised to rid us of Obamacare and I think he would be real tough on illegal immigration. He has also made an allegiance to stand with Israel and support our allies.
I live in Michigan with many family members from Tennessee and MA. Voters in Michigan supported Romney during the last primary and he won this state. I think he could win in the north, New England and carry a huge portion of the west. Making his decision to select a tea party candidate as his VP would gain him a win in the south.
He is articulate, intelligent and would give Obama a very tough debate.
Romney has almost secured my vote, with no guilt.
We will not field a “perfect candidate” for a couple of reasons. First and most importantly, we, among ourselves, cannot agree on the definition of “perfect.” Second, we have a tendency to get side-tracked by one or two performances in front of the cameras, i.e., Palin’s blindsiding by Couric, or any number of idiotic pronouncements on TV by any number of Republican [and, for that matter, Donkey] politicians. And, third, we tend to get pretty testy about the candidate of our personal preference.
Folks, let’s face it: Job number ONE is the defeat of 0 in 2012. Let us choose “good” versus “perfect” while doing our level best to avoid “poor” or “bad.” Oh, and the number two spot on the ballot will be important this time around, so give that a deal of thought, too.
Yup. Perry dropped his cards. Maybe on purpose? Just sayin’…interesting times.
Loved Santorum and Cain but there IS a void! I want Palin to get in and heck
… Christie too. God Bless America:)
Cain just won the Florida straw poll!!
Oh what a day:)
And Christie is NOT running!
“And there is no evidence that Mitt Romney effectively downsized the bloated Massachusetts government.”
There’s plenty of evidence that he tried:
As governor, Mitt Romney issued about 250 vetoes of bills passed by the Dem-controlled MA state legislature–bills on budget and other issues. But in the MA legislature, Dems outnumber Repubs by 4 to 1. (In some local races, the GOP doesn’t even bother to run candidates because they have no chance; the only party on the ballot is the Dems.)
As a result, every single one of Romney’s 250 vetoes was overridden. The Dems have more than enough votes to override every veto from any Republican governor. And they did.
Romney knew that–but he still issued those vetoes to set the record straight.
I will take Perry or Romney, as long as we get Obama and Harry Reid out of washington. Romney will track to the Political Right with a Conservative Congress. We all need to support Conservative Representatives and Senator.
Finally, The Next POTUS will need to get rid of all of the Far Left Government Workers, any political appointmented Democrats should be excused on January 21st 2012.
Romney will never do this, I guarantee it. He is spineless.
Romney is a RINO. i don’t trust him. But if I have to choose between RINO Romney and Comprehensive ILLEGAL ALIEN Reform Perry, I’ll choose Romney.
If the choice comes down to Romney or Perry, I choose Perry because with him I get about 70% while with Romney it is more like 40%.
Sinz54 & D Foster: I agree with you both. We have to make sure that the Pres will be strong enough to get rid of these sicophants especially the attornies in the DOJ, appointed by holder.
Romney isn’t my first choice, but darn (and I’ve said it before) I’ll crawl over glass to vote for Romney, otherwise we won’t have a country in 4 years. I agree that we need to change the makeup in the Senate and give whomever a conservative body that will hem him in.
I really believe that if you listen to the black panthers threaten “the crackers and their children” that they think they can get away with it with obama and holder, and they are right. They can make these speeches and gin up their following and storm the streets and intimidate voters and they will get away with it. We’d better realize what is coming if obama gets in again, he will not have to answer to anyone – well maybe soros.
OK, first and foremost, beat the O. It looks good for either one of the frontrunners to do that. I’m afraid Mitt Romney is too much of the old school establishment in my opinion. Say anything to get elected then…. who knows. He’s flopped too many times for my taste.
Rick Perry comes from a state that hates politicians. If he wasn’t doing a good job they would throw him out in a heartbeat. He’s not doing good in these debates but I wonder if it could be he is just trying to say what his speechwriters tell him while really wanting to say what he thinks. As to the border issue, he’s kind of between a rock and a hard place. He’s getting no help from the feds, he has way too much territory to cover with the Rangers, you can wade across the border in the dry season and most of the area around it is desolate. He really wants to close the border but just can’t do it alone. His version of the dream act is probably the best thing he could do short of declaring open season on Mexicans. On the other hand, his dream act will probably appeal to the Spanish vote. It could show them that he can work with them for what is in their best interest.
I wonder if Palin would consider running as his VP if she doesn’t throw her hat in the ring?
Palin will be heading the winning ticket for president. She is not going to be anyone’s running mate. Pleeese
A Palinista. Figures. Couldn’t decide where, exactly, in the Palin/Paul spectrum you were but obviously in one. You people are as bad as the lefties. Just scream and shout down any opposing point of view. And…you’ve got to be kidding if you thing that your goddess, Palin, would have knocked the ball out of the park with little baby Jesus rays shooting out of her head at the debate. She’s just as programmed as Bachmann.
Well, Kathryn, I am an unrepentant, unabashed Palin supporter. But my mother, wife, and kids love me and that’s all that counts. Your criticism is a badge of courage for me.
Believe me, I’m in good company when it comes to supporting Sarah Palin. Take a look at how the New York Times (yes, the Times) writer, Anand GIRIDHARADAS, describes the content of Sarah Palin’s speech at Indianola Iowa.
“Some of Sarah Palin’s Ideas Cross the Political Divide”
http://anand.ly/articles/some-of-sarah-palins-ideas-cross-the-political-divide
Pay particular attention to the over 500 comments below this article.
Thanks
Translation from Female to English: Rick Perry is an aggressive Alpha Male, and Mitt is just too Beta Male for me!
Perry has presided over a state, that according to the Center for Immigration Studies, created about 85% of all new jobs … for non-citizens. Other figures put it at something like 67%. Either way, its terrible. The State of Texas grew by quite a bit in US Citizens, people moving there from other places. But nearly all the jobs created were taken by non-Citizens, mostly illegals.
Let’s be clear what happened in Texas. No deregulation or anything else created jobs. What amounted to the remains of Middle and Upper Class Mexico fled to Texas and opened bars, restaurants, food trucks, hiring their relatives and then other Mexicans (no gringos need apply).
Perry’s Texas is one massive failure. Its Northern Mexico, without quite so much violence, about 75% of children in Texas are Hispanic, or put it another way belong to the Hispanic classification which Pew Hispanic Trust estimated to have a median household net worth of … $6,000. As opposed to the White median net worth of $134,000. Wow.
Perry is a complete idiot, unable to see one step ahead. He’s come out against closing the border, or even trying to enforce it against illegal aliens. He wants to give illegals (and is) about $100,000 in in-state tuition violating basic fairness and drawing in more illegals.
But here’s why any sensible person should vote against Perry (or Ron Paul, same position). Failing to stop illegals, send those here home to Mexico, and eliminate birthright citizenship and deport those too, means a massive Hispanic majority. Which will promptly vote for a California style social welfare system:
Tax Whitey.
Give to La Raza.
That’s it. Entirely predictable. We will all live in Northern Mexico, where Spanish is the language of the land, Whites are third-fourth class citizens legally, openly discriminated against, and required to pony up massive amounts of taxes to benefit Hispanics, who are incapable of developing wealth on any scale.
Rick Perry’s Hispanic Texas is already doomed to be just another California, i.e. Alta Mexico, with all that implies: corruption, violence, anti-Gringo sentiment, anti-US sentiment, and so on.
Romney at least appeals to most White voters sentiments: lets not be discriminated minorities in our own country, to spend all our tax money on Mexican families when we get nothing and cannot have our own. Mexicans will always vote Democratic, i.e. “let’s tax Whitey, make him a third class person, and spend it on La Raza!” This is reality. The Bush strategy is stupid times idiot. Maybe you like Bachman, or Rudy, or whoever. But Perry is a sure fire loser, for anyone but “God that aggressive A-hole demeanor is HOT!”
I think Mitt Romney will make an excellent president. I think Rick Perry would be a pretty good president, too, but Perry’s “Jes Folks” accent just grates on me.
Romney/Perry is the ticket. We need not only to win, but we need someone who will be a first-rate president. I think Romney’s not just electable, but will be able to govern effectively.
Neither Perry nor Romney will be the nominee.
Perry was dropping before the last debate and will be down to Bachmann level before the next debate 3 weeks away. The man is like a juggler trying to keep a dozen balls in the air at the same time. He’s off on immigration, Dream Act, cronyism, Texas Corridor, the Texas venture capital fund where he picked his own winners, etc. To compound matters, he is not fluent on his feet in a spontaneous debate.
Debates matter a ton. Why? Because the eventual nominee will be going head-to-head in debates with Obama in the general election. The wooden Romney shining over Perry would be magnified by a factor of ten against Obama. Obama’s the worst president in modern US history but he is a skilled lier and orator.
Romney has been running for president since his conception, it appears. The problem with him is he wants the job too dam bad. He told three bold face lies about RomneyCare vis-a-vis ObamaCare last night and no one call him on it. He is trying to liven up his persona because he is so dull but it also makes him harsh. The snide “nice try” retort to Perry is but one example.
Neither of these men should be nominees.
Perry’s going to take a shot over immigration, though he represents the majority view so it helps in in the general election. Blasting Obama at the UN with an Israeli official is poor taste no matter the outrage inside the UN. It looked amateurishly opportunistic. A challenge to Congress would have been more important, not a photo op.
The deeper issue is that for Independents, lowering taxes and cutting entitlement programs in itself is not the solution to productivity or debt lowering. Romney shows more flexibility as loopholes must be closed and a 25% corporate tax rate should be enjoyed by only those companies that meet the bar. No more BS. You create jobs, don’t pollute and have a clean record, enjoy great rates. Who is going to clean up the waste and fraud? Who is going to reform without gutting. Who will create the new workers and brilliant scientists and professionals or is that just a market function?
Perry has not articulated that although Romney has some record effecting change in a Blue State. While you have got to like Ahmadinejad facing someone like Perry, it is going to take a smart guy to out fox the foxes and Perry doesn’t seem to have that savvy unless hunting counts…
Neither candidate has found the rhetorical chord of “restoring America’s greatness” with the “excellence” of plans that both work in their details and appeal to the national consensus any leader must now form in this disunited country.
Just an opinion from an Indie….
Romney and Perry are both flawed. Surprise, huh?
The difference is that Perry hasn’t come up with a good way of rationalizing his flaws and Romney has. And so far, the tests have been easy. Maybe it’s because Romney has been practicing for five years on the national stage. So maybe Perry will be ready four years from now.
The problem is that we have to figure out a way to keep the country alive for four more years, and that involves defeating a media machine that is probably worth 15 to 20 points in a NORMAL election.
We don’t need a replay of Sharon Angle for the most important presidential election at least since 1860. Stop slavishly listening to the talk show guys on this matter, people. Style, communication skills, stage presence and good tactics count. A lot. Sharon had the ideology part down pat, and she got smeared.
You can eliminate Bachmann, Santorium, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson for the same reason. I would have included Huntsman, but he lifted his game last night.
And I’ll say it again…the policy debates are only relevant because they reveal the style and capabilities of the candidates. History will remember the person who defeated the man who was trying to deatroy the country, not the person who has the most ideologiccally pure position on immigration.
The debates are extremely relevant. Why? Because there will be a series of debates in the general against Obama. If Perry can’t hold his own against Romney, he should get the gong.
That’s my point.
The policy discussions are mostly a sideshow, because the overriding policy issue is to defeat Obama, because all of the candidates with the possible exceptions of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are acceptable, and because a president doesn’t have carte blanche to do exactly what the candidates proclaim anyway.
Taking something to the extreme often illustrates the truth. Suppose that you are violently opposed to Perry’s stance on reduced tuition for illegals, but you feel like he is the only candidate with any chance whatsoever to beat Obama. If you voted for Santoreum because you love his position on immigration (even though he has never lived in a state that has the problem and therefore has only theoretical experience with the issue), even though you are sure he will lose the election, it would be a huge mistake.
Perry is illustrating this point perfectly. All of the hand-wringing about him is, on the surface, about his “impure” positions. But does anybody really think he isn’t one of the three most conservative candidates? And does anybody really think that Bachmann or Santoreum could win the general election in a million years? Maybe there are two or three of those types, but they are hopeless anyway. So the reason Perry is dropping like a rock has nothing whatsoever to do with his policies. It’s all about how he had handled himself.
For Perry to come back, he doesn’t really need to change his positions at all. He needs to improve his game, explain himself better, stop the ineffective pit bull attacks, and be more prepared for the inevitable hard questions.
In all fairness to Gov. Perry, I believe his handlers need to back off. My impression is that Gov. Perry is learning now what Sarah Palin learned in preparation for her debate with VP Biden. Too many notes, check lists, bullet points, etc. Gov. Perry looked like he was trying in vain to recall which notes to apply in each circumstance and, as a result, looked entirely befuddled.
Part of the problem for Gov. Perry is that of instantly becoming the lead candidate when he announced. He became the main course at the debates because he shot into the lead.
The other problem for Gov. Perry is the myriad of policies and practices he has had as governor that is drawing fire from conservatives. So, in addition to being the main course, he has to respond to an array of topics including cronyism, the Texas Dream policy, cross-border health insurance, the Texas Corridor, immigration, the Texas venture capital fund (where he determines winners who just happen to show up on his donor list).
The vetting process for Gov. Perry has only begun. The substance is just as suspect as the delivery. If, as you argue, we select Perry because he’s the best we got, we appreciably handicap ourselves in the general.
Actually, I no longer favor Perry, because he hasn’t handled himself well enough to beat the marxist smear machine. I might come back to him if he improves, since he is the best ideological fit for myself and the country (Bachmann and Santoreum are simply too rigid and strident and have never had to make difficult compromises because of the positions they have held). And I say that even though I have taken more exception to Perry’s position on SS than any other person on PJM.
Nobody is willing to say it, but there is a very large category of conservatives who previously thought of themselves as ideologically pure who have suddenly discovered that ideology isn’t 100% of the matter, despite Rush’s and Levins’s insistance that it is. imho, Levin lost Nevada for Republicans in 2010. Another candidate had a better chance to defeat Reid. But at least we have the satisfaction of being rigid in our beliefs, right?
But I was always in the camp of electability and have no problem with admitting it. For doing so, I am frequently slammed on PJM, as you just did, but almost everybody is the same way, they just don’t recognize it. Perry’s fall proves it because if he isn’t conservative enough, nobody is.
People attribute his fall to immigration, or the vaccine, or crony capitalism, but it’s a false flag. Any rational observor knows that it is impossible to find a candidate who agrees with oneself about everything.
Palin fans will discover the same thing if she jumps in.
You’ve articulated the battle ground nicely.
As a voter, I want someone who aligns with my CORE principles, not just in word but also in action. And the latter carries far more weight.
The debates are as close to political leadership as shooting plastic ducks in a carnival booth are to hunting. In other words, there’s a remote relationship but they’re far from equivalents.
Let others quibble about aces and spades and debate one-liners. I’m keeping my eyes on the bottom line:
Who can take on and beat Obama in 2012? Who has the cojones to spend the first 100 days undoing the damage he’s wrought?
Three people are missing from the stage: Daniels, Ryan, and Christie. Those are my 1,2,3 guys. Do I like any of the present candidates? Yes, but they are all “second tier” and “un-electable” according to the literati. Santorum, Cain, and Paul are all genuine, believable, and would suit me fine. Yes, even Paul, who is demonized for his foreign policy beliefs that sound to me a lot like George Washington’s advise to the nation. Yeah, sure we are the policeman of the world, with a call to spread democracy to all the heathen hordes. Rudyard Kipling would be proud of us. But we need a winner, right, so we better barrage Gov. Daniels to get into the race, failing that Mr. Ryan, and last resort the wild card, Gov. Christie. Otherwise we settle for Romney or Perry; one a liberal Republican not long ago, the other a Democrat not so long ago. One a stiff and the other a snake oil salesman. God help us.
I have been pushing Herman Cain for months now. The guy has real business sense and is an executive – he is a leader – he knows how to make things work.
The idea that Romney is not Conservative enough is nothing but silly. Apparently a lot of people have suddenly forgotten that Congress is also heavily involved in governing. It’s looking like 2012 will be another strong year for the GOP and it’s highly likely that we’ll keep the House and take the Senate. It’s vital that the Democrats lose Congress.
Romney may not be a DeMint-style Conservative but does anybody really think Mitt would veto bills sent to him by a Republican-controlled Congress?
Even if I agreed that Perry is holding four aces my response is that Romney’s electibility is a royal flush.
Perry is obama lite and Romney is a career pol.
both bad choices.
looking for a freaking miracle …waiting …waiting
Me too!
If Perry is “Obama light” he would have spent Texas into the poor-house! He didn’t!
Romney a career politician? Does one term as a Governor make anyone a career politician? Other than his one term in MA, Romney has been a successful businessman all of his life.
Trip down memory lane…..
So, here is the debate between Hillary Clinton v. Barack Obama in South Carolina. Ask yourself:
(1) How do you think Perry would do against Obama?
(2) How do you think Romney would do against Obama?
(3) Do you think we need someone else?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD9F1t9GQzA
Coming to the party late tonight, so forgive me if you already answered this, but exactly why do you put so damn much importance on how “good” a candidate sounds? Do you and the other folks commenting on here realize that the President didn’t address anyone for much of the first 100 years of this country? Every hear of Lincoln? Couldn’t make a speach worth shit, go ask the folks who heard him at Gettysburg. Course we still learn that one don’t we?
How about we stop with the “but does he sound good, look good, smell good” shit and actually look at the points being made in the article? If you really want to keep measuring by that particular yard-stick though please explain why anyone should vote against Barry? He still annunciates his words really well. Still looks good, and there are still more than a few pundits that will tell you that he smells real pretty. And he still has quite the crease in his suit.
So if we can put the empty suit yardstick away, how about what has the candidate in question done? Have they been consistent enough that you can be somewhat assured that you know what they will answer in two years rather than two minutes.
You’ve got Barry the flipper the White House now, and Mitty the flopper ready to take over. Then you have Perry that doesn’t “sound” smart. So sorry that we couldn’t elect a glib north-eastern prissy boy in Texas for you. We figured we’d actually elect someone that knows how to work with the people who write the legislation, enforce the legislation, and knows that his place is between the two, not in-front of the tele-prompter reading yet another vapid pile of dog shit.
But really, keep on thinking that since he’s not the first one with the jab that he’s not as smart as Barry or Mitty. Pretty sure most of the US would like what Texas has, warts and all, right about now compared to what they really do have. But then maybe that’s the truth, you actually want what you’ve got and so you’d just prefer that there was an R behind the name rather than a D, even though Romney’s as much of an empty-suit, smoozer as Barry is.
Very excellent. Thank you.
Well, welcome to the board. You views are welcome to me.
Why do we care how a presidential candidate sounds?
Well, in case your calendar is still showing the months and years of the George Washington and Abraham Lincoln era, how the candidates sound both in clarity and logic means a great deal. Fair or not, this is how Americans evaluate their candidates today (for the record, Abraham Lincoln engaged in debates and gave numerous speeches during his day, albeit, there were no televisions nor radios to blast sound bites from coast to coast).
It’s easy to make “Barry” the straw man. Who would want or could survive another four years of his socialist policies? I sure wouldn’t.
We can’t play ostrich by avoiding reality. It isn’t enough to have a good record (although with either Mitt or Perry this is arguable), the candidate must be able to convey his or her record in a coherent and substantiative way. Perry has not shown he is capable of doing that over 3 successive debates.
According to The Examiner, Romney lied four times during the last debate when attempting to contrast RomneyCare with ObamaCare. If Perry is incapable of calling Mitt on his distortions, how can he call out Obama on his?
I’m not looking for some “prissy boy” from Texas. Parish the thought! But I am looking for someone who doesn’t embarrass himself or herself during the debates or is incapable of coherently calling out an opponent on his or her distortions.
Based upon what I’ve seen of Rick Perry’s debating expertise, there hasn’t been any.
‘Sorry to state that, I rather like that man’s results in Texas.
Romney is far more adroit with words, converting his thoughts to solid, unflinching answers.
Perry was just not sharp this last debate, maybe he’s unused to being attacked from all sides.
But, the candidate who emerges from all of this MUST be ready with informed answers.
If Palin stops futzing around and gets in the whole calculation will change. Perry was awful in the debate, started to show some Bush like verbal stumbles. Romney is to a likable technocrat. I’d vote for either of them if they get the nod, but it would be more a vote AGAINST the ONE. I’d rather vote FOR someone… just for once I really, really want to vote for someone.
So I want Palin to get in. Remember, when McCain picked her, he went ahead in the polls for the first and only time in the campaign. McCain/Palin lead the One in the polls until the economy tanked. I think she scares him.
Please God, let her get in. It will make all the peoples I don’t like heads explode. I wont ask for anything again.
Have you seen her poll numbers lately? Forget about it. Sure, Sarah Palin has a few things going for her: She is photogenic and good looking, she has presence, she has conservative beliefs, she has good instincts, and yes, she scares Metroman. But she is not very articulate, not terribly well educated, not highly intelligent, and not always rational. She appeals on a primal level. She is fecund, she is maternal, she eats wild animals and throws lightening bolts. But we don’t need a goddess. We need a president.
Bigfoot:
You are wrong on so many levels. Sarah Palin wrote two books in the past 18 months, one is a best seller.
Have to question your remark about poll numbers. You realize that the latest poll by McClatchy has Palin behind Obama by only 5 points? Gov. Perry is behind Obama by 9 points. Romney is behind by 2 points.
As for the high negativity to her entering the race by Republicans, the oft-cited New York Times poll had the following internals: 50% democrats, 30% independents, and 20% republicans.
Irrespective of which poll you consider, the GOP electorate is divided across 9 declared and at least 1 undeclared candidate. If you are a Perry supporter, a Romney supporter, or Bachmann supporter, would you want someone as impactful as Sarah Palin upsetting the apple cart?
You should review Palin’s Indianola Iowa speech.
writing as a dem who realized by September 2008 that leadership fuels confidence and no-drama Obama had zero leadership:
Perry is far more electable than Romney. Elitist policy wonks usually lose.
Condescending insecure Romney does not inspire my confidence although I do give him credit for singing the national anthem in debate #2.
At this point in 2007, Obama skipped debates because Hillary was so good.
Eagle Scout who flew C-130′s – you betcha!
Ok, I do hope Perry’s debating flaws are due to the fact that he is not used to standing still for two hours. He should just ignore Romney next time, and keep saying what he means because it comes from his heart. If he ignores Romney, then Romney will explode, just like Santorum finally did.
Perry is my choice – I haven’t listen to a “debate” yet because even though it looks like the right thing to do, it’s waste of time and money.
Gov. Perry is decisive, fearless, straight-talking, intelligent and willing to go to the mat for America. I for one, have had enough of “politicians” debating while we continue to get Obamacare slammed down our throats; regulations implemented surreptitiously; executive fiats foisted upon us; wicked doublespeak garbage thrown in our faces, law-breaking elitists politicians using power for their own ends, scandals at every level, union thuggery, cronyism and so on.
Another Texan is fine with me.
Romney – Mr.Slick and can’t be trusted.
Cain – Weak (apologized to Islam) but would be on top of my list if not for Perry.
Paul – Too damn old and cranky
Newt – Talks a lot and does nothing.
Also ran – the rest of the pitiful group of patriots.
I wouldn’t give a plug nickel for Perry or Romney. Both are professional politicians & the exact types that have screwed us for yrs. & messed up the nation. The only one’s I’d ever vote for are Cain, Bachmann or Palin. And if one of ‘em doesn’t get the nod, I’d write ‘em in. Besides, being from CA makes a vote for Perry or Romney meaningless anyway. If Satan were running as a democrat CA he’d win in a landslide…
Do yourself and your country a favor and stay home on election day, youre an idiot.
Funny Romney has only been gov of Mass for one term and then didn’t run again. Doesn’t sound like a professional politician to me!
I just don’t hear Perry talking like a Presidential candidate…he’s stuck in his “Texas World” and can’t seem – as a POLITICIAN! – to shift the answer to a question into the proper NATIONAL framework.
Where’s the “this is what’s right for my state, but as for the Nation as a whole…” talk?!
Where’s the “I may support this for my state but as President, it is more inportant that…” talk?!?
IT’S NOT THERE. AND, UNTIL IT IS, PERRY IS TOAST.
He’s NOT READY for primetime.
Perry is running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. His performance/words in these “debates” to date has been on the level (and with the horseblinders) of someone running for MAYOR of Bumfu*k, TX. *Then* it would make more sense, to “have a heart” for illegals or even justify meeting the minimum requirements of Federal Regs.
As an American Citizen, I don’t give a horse’s patoot. He’s JUSTIFYING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION and SUPPORTING IT IN WORD AND DEED. It’s bad enough that American kids from other states are forced to subsidize these illegals…*if* they’re lucky enough to get in at full price. Worse is, once graduated, these illegals become AMERICA’S PROBLEM DIRECTLY.
If this MORON can’t speak *NOW* on the level of a Presidential Candidate, he should leave, or he *WILL* be forced out by loss.
Perry was more than a “disappointment” in the last “debate” (more of a serial one-on-one); I was stunned at his tone-deafness. Anti-corporatism aside (run, Sarah, run!), I just wrote the following to the Perry campaign:
“I do not need to vote for a Republican if I want to support illegal immigration (which includes taxpayer dollars paying for their education). YOU HAVE LOST MY VOTE IN THE FLORIDA PRIMARY. I do *not* want any “BS” response (I’m originally from Washington, DC and worked in the Federal Government for 12 years), AT A MINIMUM a full admission of error for this akin to your public Gardasil statement. YOU LOSE.”
It was I think during 2003 or 2004, when the Texas leglislature was democratic. The Liberals AKA democrats were screaming the sky (budget) was falling and we need to raise taxes there was even talk of -gasp- introducing income taxes. Rick Perry was very adament about raising taxes, well the tax and spend liberals didnt get there way, and you know what the sky didnt fall. He also expanded medical lawsuit reform making Texas a magnet for Doctors. Annother note Friviolous lawsuit was passed recently, just a small example of Rick Perrys commonsense beliefs that Big government dosent solve a thing.
These are debates? I thought they were simply stilted Q&A sessions with a heavy dose of gotcha (usually on the part of the LSM but not always).
An actual protracted debate where we could see how the candidate think, not regurgitate soundbites would be a good thing. This is just silliness and doesn’t enlighten the electorate in the least.
Lincoln-Douglas Debates–The format for each debate was: one candidate spoke for 60 minutes, then the other candidate spoke for 90 minutes, and then the first candidate was allowed a 30-minute “rejoinder.” The candidates alternated speaking first. As the incumbent, Douglas spoke first in four of the debates.
The debates are ludicrous as well as useless. Everyone on the stage are liars except Ron Paul. Mr Paul has been consistent in each of his answers & to me, is the only person up there that will do what he says he will do. Forget the debates, check their records, therein will lie the truth.
the whole field of candidates is a dismal record of what the republican party has come to.
Perry is talking like obama lite. coddling muslims and illegals
Christe .. a favorite of many also coddles muslims.
what the conservatives want is a return to the constitution. PERIOD. FULL STOP.
if some one has the courage to campaign on that and live by it they will become the next president.
Rubio …sorry folks he is not natural born. sharing the constructional problem obama has.
career politicians the lot of them. at times they sound conservative. but they avoid the issues which show them to be as spineless appeasers.
Keep in mind recent polling has Perry’s approval rating in TX at only 44% (No Perry wont lose TX to Onbama), but if Texans cant stand this guy, does anyone think he’ll play well with the electorate as a whole??? GW Bush was beloved in TX (I lived in DFW from 1995-99), his approval rating never fell below 65%, yet the country never took to him or his style. Perry would be an absolute disaster. I think the GOP base can overlook Gardisil, but not his immigration position.
Yep us Texans hate Rick Perry so much that we have elected him 3 times as our Governor. FACT is this-he stomped a popular sitting Senator in the primary that was backed by the same Republican machine that is backing Romney. And then turned around & stomped Democrat Bill White who FYI was popular too.
Perry is another Sockless Jerry Simpson or Pitchfork Ben Tilden.
Mormon Romney is a hero for he was two years in Paris when a youngster and touched neither liquor,nor whores nor coffee. What other candidate can say that.
He will get the Muslim vote since much of the Book of Mormon like the Koran is garbled bits of the Bible. Both turn inerring truth into incorrigible lies and this is also the true mark of a skilled politician
I just can’t let that assertion stand. Yes, Romney can answer that he never smoked pot (I guess that will doom him for sure), or took drugs or alcohol. Yes, he lived in France for a couple of years at 19,living in basic apartments having doors slammed in his face and having stones thrown at him. Having to cook his own food, getting a very basic living allowance, no girlfriends, no dates, 2 calls home a year. With all that the missionaries come home loving the people they served.
The Book of Mormon (or another witness for Christ) is about the people living on this continent. It has nothing to do with muslims. Gosh get that through your head! Try reading it!
Romney couldn’t possibly get the Muslim votes, Obama has them all to himself.
I think you forgot to mention, besides the fact that you dread the Mormon faith, that Romney has been faithfully married to one woman, and they have raised seven(7)fine children in a very stable home.
He could be a role model to family life.
Well that is quite funny reminds me of the picutre I had this spring for a friends birthday party he loved it (ironically). I’d rathe rpaint it up good like a gemini c group art painting. I’ve een others at you know thoe mom and pop stores and they are good enough, the joker is backkkk in an odd way.
The debates are good to have, the problem is the way they are done. I cannot believe the Republican party was so stupid that they would let the so-called “mainstream” media frame the questions. With some of the stupid questions coming from those far leftist moderators they might as well let Debbie Wasserman-Schultz run the debate.
Texans are all blowhards, Texas loud and Texas proud. Two presidents from Texas got us into two unnecessary wars, Johnson into Viet Nam and Bush into Iraq, please no more Texas blowhards.
Our obsessive fixation with Presidential politics obscures a deeper problem: we have a Congress that passes bad laws and spends too much money. Many if not most of its members should be voted out of office. But unfortunately, despite their miserable standing in every national poll, these “despised” individuals are re-elected over and over again–and by the same people who tell the pollsters they don’t approve of them! How to explain? It’s not easy. But what we do know is that if that we keep re-electing the same folks that brought us to where we are, it is likely we will continue to get more of the same. No matter who is in the White House.
Precisely. That is why I NEVER vote for incumbents. Unfortunately I still have to live with the losers my fellow voters elect here in California. But I keep trying….
Where’s the urgency in these debates. There’s little time before the selection process for CEO of the US begins in earnest. This game at the moment looks like selection for a student council president. Look at the candidates. Romney, the scion of the political aristocracy of one of the bluest of the blue states, and the pet of establishment Republicans. Massachusetts voters elected Romney and the senior senator John Kerry, who makes no secret of his “aristocratic” disdain for ordinary Americans, those vulgar “cowboys of the West”.
Massachusettes which has much of a muchness supported virtually ALL the programs of big government illiberal liberal politicians. Let’s ask how much pork and amenities come from the federal treasury and those cowboys of the West for their programs / institutions e.g. Harvard.
On the other hand Rick Perry, not only one of those vulgar cowboys of the West, but of the only state that began life as a Republic. We might guess that Texans still have the memory of their republic in their skins.
To me there’s only one choice from this roster, as my fave isn’t on it, and that is the vulgar cowboy of the west as against the representative of the royal court of the blue states, dare we call it Camelot?
Republicans don’t understand independents. Independents are not politically in the middle per se. Most independents are apolitical. They will vote for the person they like the most. Left or right – it doesn’t matter. That’s how Obama won over McCain. People like Don Imus. They voted for Obama because they liked him and thought it would be good for the country to have a black president.
Out of the 30% independents 10% is in the middle politically and 20% is apolitical and don’t care about party affiliation.
Will Rick Perry Stand for States Rights?
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/05/will-rick-perry-stand-for-states-rights/
I have not decided on a candidate yet but I am leaning towards Romney. For those who say that if Romney did not catch fire the first time, then why would he this time, may I remind them that Reagan tried 3 times before he got the nomination. As for Palin, I am getting tired of her. I was willing to give her the benefit of a doubt if she was willing to go through the debates and fight like all the other candidates. She is a loser in my book. At least Buckman gets A for trying. Palin just does not have the cajones.
“Palin does not have the cajones?’ lol
And, Mitt Romney has the cajones….right?
Sarah Palin has had more garbage thrown at her and her family members and she continues to be a tremendous force for the Tea Party.
Let’s see how Gov. Romney fares with the media pouring through 250,000 of his emails when he served as governor. Let’s see how Romney fares if one of his children is accused of hooking up with a Yankee baseball player while touring Yankee Stadium with her mother by David Letterman on national television.
You can’t be serious. Sarah Palin has more cajones than anyone on the stage except possibly Herman Cain.
Palin and her family went through hell during the 2008 campaign. She is now banking on the dividend of that campaign because she has the national wide name recognition no one other than the perpetual presidential office seeker Mitt Romney has.
So, why would Sarah Palin subject herself to the battle of sound bites with 9 declared candidates on stage? Instead, she will wait until Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Johnson drop off. She will pick up much of those votes and cut into Perry’s too. I call it a smart political strategy.
It has been thirty years since the Republican machine, such as it is, put forward an acceptable candidate. We are left in an attempt to select the cream of the crap, and then cheer him on because the alternative is so horrible.
Perhaps what these candidates are really telling us is that we need another four years of Obama to clear our heads.
Stop making sense! You’re killing me!
The problem with Perry’s debate performances is simply this:
at some point candidates must debate someone from the opposing party
and even if you get elected you have to forcefully convince others of your positions.
Let’s be clear, the US is mired in an economic downturn, involved in a global war with terrorism and a deeply divided country.
To our everlasting shame, we elected the most unqualified president in history and we need someone of strength and stature to lead this nation and lead it well.
Out of the current field, the only leaders with national appeal are Perry and Romney. Of the two, Perry will only win if the American public decides to fire Obama and this is very different from a Romney who can actually convince people to vote for him.
For die hard social conservatives – they better decide if they love this country enough to stop a second term of Obama more than whether their President is as ideologically as committed as they are. 2012 will decide the fate of this country. We either turn it around or we are toast. Rick Perry lacks the broad substance we need for a President. His debate performance shows a man with a mediocre verbal ability and a weak reasoning skills.
He will make a terrible President; we need the best leader we can get.
I’m sorry I let this go before I had time to fill out the top. I posted this. It was response to someone above.
Anonymous
I just can’t let that assertion stand. Yes, Romney can answer that he never smoked pot (I guess that will doom him for sure), or took drugs or alcohol. Yes, he lived in France for a couple of years at 19,living in basic apartments having doors slammed in his face and having stones thrown at him. Having to cook his own food, getting a very basic living allowance, no girlfriends, no dates, 2 calls home a year. With all that the missionaries come home loving the people they served.
The Book of Mormon (or another witness for Christ) is about the people living on this continent. It has nothing to do with muslims. Gosh get that through your head! Try reading it!
I’m still waiting for Chris Christie but I have nothing against silver spoons. While Romney has his Romney care to contend with, Perry has his problems with the college tuition for illegals issue as well as his former activities as an active Democerat party person. It speaks for the generous attitude of the Bushies if they are in good stead with one of their former enemies….a supporter of Gore and the Texas chairman of his campaign. I am leaning towards Romney. Although I initially liked Perry, the more I learn about him, the less I like him.
Mitt (Obamneycare) Romney is the one that’s unelectable, think Perot getting 19% in 92, and 8% in 96, and getting Clinton elected TWICE. I for one will never vote for the RINO Romney, I only voted for RINO McCain because he picked Palin as VP. I can clearly see a third party candidate like Donald Trump, splitting the right and getting enough votes to let Obama win, if the big government establishment Republicans insist on picking another establishment loser like Romney, McCain, Dole. I would rather the GOP remain in the wilderness for another 4 years until they realize they must be the party of small government or they will be the powerless party.
Voting Democrat lite is still voting Democrat, and will never lessen the burden of the Government Monopoly on the economy that we must have to survive and thrive.
No,you are a democrat! You are dumb enuff to think this country will be around in 4 more years of obama you deserve what you get. Unfortunately, the rest of us will get it too!
Who ever comes thru the primaries will get my vote and I hope the vote of most thinking people.
“Which brings us to a very sticky wicket, as the Brits might say.”
No, that’s not how the phrase is used. What we might actually say is , “So he’ll be batting on a very sticky wicket”, meaning that he will be in difficulty, like a batsman facing bowling on a pitch that has just been rained on.
On one hand we have an Obama Lite who has flipped flopped on every issue under the sun and on the other we have a Bush Lite who takes credit for a situation he isn’t responsible for (sort of like the coach who is called in to replace the one who had a heart attack and has to helm the 1960 Yankees). Now we are told by the legacy media and the usual suspects of the Washington talking heads crowd who we should vote for and who is ahead.
We’ll from my point of view these two losers seem like the lawyer In My Cousin Vinny who is appointed to defend the “two yuths” before Vinny gets his chance. They are clueless, arrogant in their abilities, puerile in thier unending lies and justifications for growing government and supporting failed policies that reduce our freedoms.
I predict that either the GO_ will select someone else or that if one is selected that despite the horeror Obama has created among voters that people will realize voting for the lesser of two evils will not solve anything. It stretchs credulity to believe anyone could believe or have faith in these two second rate imitations of Elmer Gantry.
Rick Perry’s “Achilles Heel” is his college tuition gifting to offspring of illegal aliens. I think he took a calculated risk, in order to patronize the Hispanic voter bloc. But, it remains to be seen if the rest of this country feels as magnanimous as Gov. Perry about tax-payer dollars.
There were some good arguments against Perry’s magnitude at the recent Florida Republican debate.
Kyle Anne seems to have drank of the Kool-Aid which says that only Romney or Perry can be nominated and elected. I put Palin, Bachmann, and Cain far ahead of either of these plastic men.
Is Kyle-Anne from that most deservedly nuke-liable city, D.C.?
Excellent blog here! Additionally your web site a lot up fast! What host are you the use of? Can I am getting your associate hyperlink on your host? I desire my site loaded up as fast as yours lol
hi!,I like your writing very so much! proportion we be in contact more approximately your article on AOL? I require an expert in this house to solve my problem. Maybe that’s you! Looking forward to see you.
Its like you learn my mind! You seem to grasp a lot about this, like you wrote the ebook in it or something. I feel that you just can do with a few p.c. to pressure the message home a little bit, however instead of that, this is excellent blog. A fantastic read. I will certainly be back.
My brother recommended I would possibly like this blog. He was once entirely right. This put up actually made my day. You cann’t believe just how much time I had spent for this info! Thank you!
Heya i?m for the primary time here. I came across this board and I find It really helpful & it helped me out much. I am hoping to give one thing again and aid others like you aided me.
Excellent site. Lots of useful info here. I’m sending it to several pals ans also sharing in delicious. And certainly, thanks to your effort!